The persistent faith in peer reviewed journals is touching. One implication of the leaks is that the peer review system was corrupted. Get your papers reviewed by people who subscribe to your theory & guess what happens. I can almost guarantee that none of the peer review involved examination of the raw data and source code. If it did, it's even more shocking!

You suggest data hasn't been fudged. Examination of the leaked software suggests little else was being done by this particular group.

The devil is in the detail on this & what has been examined so far looks pretty bad. It's early days & there's probably more to come. It really does shed an unkind light on the computer models. In fairness there may be others producing more credible work, but after this it really need to be opened up to the same kind of scrutiny to be validated as good science.

I'd have thought the news that people may be fudging things would be good. You have to ask yourself two questions.